“Wyvil was cross-examined by the prosecutor as to whether he really never knew the prisoner to vary in the least from the truth, or to take liberties with the sweetmeats, or to tease cats, or to do any little thing that might trench upon the borders of falsehood, theft or cruelty.
“But all this only brought out the most positive declaration of the witness that he had not.
“Joseph Wyvil was then allowed to sit down, and Belinda Claxton was called to the stand.
“Being sworn, this witness testified that she knew the prisoner at the bar, who had been her lodger for two months up to the time of his arrest; that on the night of the highway robbery and murder he had come home to tea, and had arranged to spend the evening with his wife, and herself and her husband, to play a game of whist, but that news had come of the old squire’s sudden death, and that she had persuaded him, the prisoner, to walk over to the Hall and see if the report was true. That he went off, promising to be back in half an hour, or in an hour at most. When he failed to come she only thought that he had been detained at the Hall.
“Mrs. Claxton was also cross-examined as to when this whist party had been arranged. She answered that it had been settled before the prisoner had gone out to the post-office that afternoon, that he was to return to an early tea, and play whist all the evening.
“Mrs. Claxton was allowed to retire.
“John Claxton, husband of the last witness, was called, and corroborated her testimony in every item.
“Then the prosecutor got up to deliver the closing address to the jury. He made very light of the testimony for the defence, showing, or attempting to show, the jury that it really proved nothing, and had so little to do with the charge against the prisoner that it might well have been ruled out as irrelevant, impertinent and vexatious. He exhorted the jurors to do their stern duty as British jurors to punish red-handed crime; to—and so forth, and so forth.
“The judge arose to make the final charge. It was all against the prisoner. His honor considered the evidence for the prosecution as quite conclusive; the evidence advanced by the defence as weak and inconsequential. And charged the jury to bring in a verdict in accordance with the facts proven.
“Criminal trials of this sort are soon concluded in England. They do not waste so much time or spend so much money as we do over them.